I wouldn't put Perry that high. Also what possible justification do you have for Gillan being above Daltrey?

Phrasing has not been used in the conversation of skill for quite some time. Jeff Buckley has great technique, that's why he's so high. It's not particularly vague at all.

There is a lot that goes into "control" though, and you are being vague by simply stating that one singer has better control than the other. Range on it's own doesn't mean anything. David Lee Roth has one of the biggest ranges out there, so does that make him particularly skilled? Phrasing has nothing to do with technique in this regard.

You are free to explain why Buckley and Mercury are not amongst the most skilled vocalists in rock.

As for range, you need to consider a singer actually using their voice to sing throughout their range. Ie low/high passages, using their whole singing range. Elvis Presely was a better user of range than DLR. Phrasing should be part of the skill criteria. It's so important if you are a singer it's not even funny.

The only real thing you could say Gillan beats Daltrey in is influence on hard rock. Daltreys influence on punk as well as britpop, not to mention the numerous big names that he's revered by really put him ahead of Gillan in every area.

As for your Perry and Daltrey breakdown. You have to appreciate that The Who were a significantly bigger band than Journey. Daltrey is/was far more iconic. Perry certainly wins skill, but not by as big a margin as you suggest, and certainly not by as large a margin as he beats a fair percentage of the top ten I might add. Daltrey beats him in all the areas of versatility, diction and range. Perry of course has more control and better technique. It's always been a bit vague as to what 'skill' encompasses for singers here though. One minute the technical card is played which puts singers like Adam Lambert high, the next the use of things like phrasing etc is used to put someone like J Buckley high. There really needs to be a more coherent description of what skill really is

I don't think that we should take much account of which band were the singers. If so, Mick Jagger would be top 10.

I agree with you about Daltrey > Gillan

Perry/Daltrey: I still think Perry beats Daltrey in Musical Impact.

About Skill, I think you're taking too much in regard the performance of the singer on stage. And devaluing what is done in studio.

Considering Freddie's handicap (vocal nodules), I'd say he fared pretty well! :D

If you want the absolute most skilled vocalist in rock and roll, look no further than Paul Stanley from the last couple years (able to hit multiple notes at once and get overtones into the 7th octave)! That takes lots of skill!

I meant that Daltrey was the same sized fish in a bigger Pond than Perry. Theres also no way Perry beats Roger Daltrey in musical impact. Perry really never did anything as impacting as the scream in Won't Get Fooled Again, the opening to See me Feel me, or the stutter in my generation.

Musical Impact refers to how much a singer's career impacted rock music.

I think we may be having a problem understanding the criterion here.

The criteria say:


I can understand how the singer was/is acclaimed by the prominent musical peers and publications. And I can use the argument that in lists of singers, Perry is quoted more than Daltrey.

So then I can say that Perry is considered by many the best live singer of all time.

I really hate the 'Poor Freddie had nodules' excuse. His underdeveloped technique early on either caused them or made them worse. He also had plenty of other habits which hurt his voice. So it's not as if he had a condition and did all the right things to fix it or keep it under control